Reading Failure among Iranian EFL Learners: Study of ... issue3/19-6-3-18.pdfJournal of English...

Reading Failure among Iranian EFL Learners: Study of Underlying Problems [PP: 164-176]

Elnaz Khataee

Hakim Sabzevari University

Sabzevar, Iran

ABSTRACT Reading comprehension is the most important in the four skills particularly when English is

taught as a foreign language or as a second language (Carrell, Devine, & Eskey, 1988). The present

study used a mixed method design to investigate the major comprehension problems encountered by

Iranian EFL advanced learners through reading comprehension process. Participants were 63 students

from an institute in Mashhad, Iran. First, the participants took reading comprehension tests, the purpose

of which was to determine their level of reading comprehension. After a comparison between their

scores and the mean score of the whole group and also the teacher‘s determination during a specified

term, good comprehenders and poor comprehenders were identified. Second, they were asked to fulfill

a questionnaire about their difficulties through the process of reading comprehension. Good

comprehenders faced problems such as difficulty of the content (82.35%) and unknown vocabulary

(64.70%). Poor comprehenders had problems such as unknown vocabulary (100%) and shortage of

time (89.13%). Thus, it can be concluded that helping students in overcoming these kinds of problems

for enhancing their reading comprehension will be beneficial for them.

Keywords: Reading Comprehension, EFL Learners, Poor Comprehenders, Good Comprehenders,

Comprehension Problems ARTICLE

INFO

The paper received on Reviewed on Accepted after revisions on

03/07/2018 24/08/2018 30/09/2018

Suggested citation:

Khataee, E. (2018). Reading Failure among Iranian EFL Learners: Study of Underlying Problems. International

Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 6(3). 164-176.

1. Introduction

Reading comprehension is one of the

most essential skills for EFL learners who

have fewer opportunities to communicate

and improve in English. It is one of the

necessary language skills for those who read

to gain knowledge. Given the importance of

reading comprehension skill, identifying the

most common causes of reading failure is of

great importance. It is necessary for the

teachers to first recognize the main reading

comprehension problems of learners and

then help them to be good and fast readers.

Many researchers have emphasized the

significant role of reading comprehension

skill for EFL learners (Richards &

Renandya, 2002; Alfassi, 2004; Dreyer &

Nel, 2003). Carrell (1987) believed that

there are two reasons for this statement that

reading is the most important skill in

language learning, "First, most foreign

language students often have reading as one

of their most important goals." "Second,

different pedagogical processes served by

written texts help reading to receive this

special focus." EFL learners need reading

skill for obtaining knowledge from texts and

also fluency. According to Carrell, Devine,

and Eskey, (1988), reading skill is the most

important in the four skills particularly when

English is taught as a foreign language or as

a second language.

Reading is a multidimensional skill

and consists of a complex combination of a

cognitive, linguistic and non-linguistic skills

from low-level processing abilities to high-

order knowledge of text representation and

integration of ideas with global knowledge.

(Nassaji, 2003). According to Dubin, Eskey,

Grabe, and Savignon (1986), the knowledge

crucial to reading comprehension is

classified into two types: knowledge of form

and knowledge of substance. Knowledge of

form is linguistic in nature and consists of

graphophonic, lexical, syntactic and

semantic knowledge. Knowledge of

substance entails cultural and pragmatic

knowledge.

A reading process is a productive

activity for making sense of a message, and

to interpret, analyze, or predict the meaning

of the text to arrive at comprehension and a

reader is an active participant who has a

central role as an interpreter, analyzer, and

predictor of the text. So a reader is not just a

passive person who receives information

from the text but the one who gives meaning

to the text. Hengari (2007) indicated that

Reading Failure among Iranian EFL Learners: Study … Elnaz Khataee

International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies (www.eltsjournal.org) ISSN:2308-5460

Volume: 06 Issue: 03 July-September, 2018

Page | 165

reading comprehension is the ability to make

sense of written texts and this ability

includes word recognition, comprehension

and interpretation, and application of what is

in the text. Therefore, readers need to

interact with the text to extract meaning

from it. Reading performance, good or

poor, reflects the ability of the readers in

inferencing, predicting and using their

previous knowledge during the reading

comprehension process and the students

being taught to read must understand the

relationship between reading and their

language. Snow (2002) also indicated that

reading comprehension is ―the process of

simultaneously extracting and constructing

meaning through interaction and

involvement with written language‖ and this

process does not occur unless teachers

identify and stop the causes of reading

comprehension difficulties of learners. So

the mental processes of the readers are

important for researchers and it is proved by

many researchers in the proposal of reading

models. These models, from the ones that

are linear in nature, such as bottom-up

processing (Goodman, 1967; Carrell &

Eisterhold, 1983; Hayes, 1991) and top-

down processing (Goodman, 1967; Coady,

1979; Dubin, Eskey, Grabe, & Savignon

(1986) to interactive processing (Rumelhart,

1980; Gove, 1983), demonstrates the efforts

that the theorists have delved into what

happens when readers are reading and the

importance of this fundamental skill (Chang,

2005).

There are three major research

questions involved in this study: (1) what are

the major reading comprehension problems

of Iranian advanced EFL learners? (2) Is

there any difference between the reading

comprehension problems of good and poor

EFL learners through reading

comprehension process?

2. Reading Comprehension: Theoretical

Background

There are a lot of theories on reading

comprehension. We are going to focus on

two important approaches: 'bottom-up' and

'top-down`. `Bottom up` theory is based on

the smallest linguistic units of a text from

which particular knowledge schemas are

activated. In this theory the process of

comprehension starts with words (their

pronunciation, semantic value, morphology,

etc.), that give access to more extensive

units like syntagmas, sentences, paragraphs

and finally to understand the whole text.

Carrel and Eiserhold (1983) have mentioned

these approaches in other words. They

indicated that reading comprehension

happens in two directions, from bottom up

to the top and from the top down to the

bottom of the hierarchy. Bottom-up

processing is activated by specific data from

the text, and top-down processing starts with

general to confirm these predictions. These

processes occur simultaneously and

interactively, which adds to the interaction

or comprehension between bottom-up and

top-down processes. Nunan (1991) believes

that the process of reading in this view is

decoding a series of symbols from written

into aural equivalents to have access to the

meaning of the text. The meaning of each

paragraph is determined by the prior

interpretation of each sentence of the

paragraph that is made by interpreting each

word in each sentence.

According to Nunan (1991), Dubin

and Bycina (1991), the 'bottom-up' model

consists more general aspects of

comprehension such as: the gist of every

paragraph, the title of the text, etc; and goes

into smaller linguistic units. Top down

approach is based on the previous

knowledge or background knowledge of the

readers. So to understand the whole message

of a text, first the readers have to

comprehend a paragraph then understand the

meaning of each sentence and word that

make up the message. Top-down approach

activates high level schemas that help

readers comprehend the passage. Top-down

and bottom-up models are important in

every research that is related to reading

comprehension process.

2.1 Metacognitive View & Reading

Comprehension

Metacognition is the control readers

execute on their ability to understand a text

(Block, 1992). It involves considering the

processes of the mind while one is reading.

Klein (1991) believes that high level readers

try to find the purpose of the reading before

starting to read. Then they identify the type

of the text. After that, they try to project the

writer's purpose of writing the text and scan

the text to identify the details. And finally,

inferencing or making predictions about the

next happenings, based on prior knowledge

is what readers do during reading

comprehension process.

2.2 Schema Theory & Reading

Comprehension

According to Piaget (1972) in Craig

(1989, p. 36), ―Schemata‖ is a term for

mental patterns that form experiences, ideas

and information; individuals‘ schemas

change as they grow. The theoretical base of



Cite this article as: Khataee, E. (2018). Reading Failure among Iranian EFL Learners: Study of Underlying

Problems. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 6(3). 164-176.

Page | 166

the background theory is schema theory.

Rumelhart (1980, P.34) defined the word

schema as "a data structure for representing

the genetic concepts stored in memory" and

indicated that schema theory explains how

readers use their prior knowledge to

comprehend and learn from text. Medin and

Russ (1992, p.246) define it as "a general

knowledge structure used for

understanding". It is also defined by

Anderson and Pearson (1984, p.42) as "an

abstract knowledge structure". Rumelhalt

(1980), Carrell (1981) and Hudson (1982)

have applied it, when examining the

importance of background knowledge in

reading comprehension process.

According to the basis of this theory,

the written text does not carry meaning by

itself and it just direct readers to how they

should construct meaning from their own

prior acquired knowledge. Based on the

studies by Carrell (1987) and Irwin (1991),

students become discouraged when they

confronted by passages that consists of too

much unfamiliar vocabulary or had not been

internalized. In these studies, presenting the

words before starting the text was not

effective for the students. Participants of

these studies have mentioned that they had

difficulties in understanding idioms because

they could not be translated directly. Many

other participants indicated that some of the

materials and texts used in the classroom did

not align with their schemata. Therefore the

absence of a familiar schema can be a

serious barrier to comprehension.

Barrlett (1932), Adams and Collins

(1979), and Rumelhart (1980), stated that

prior knowledge is the readers' background

knowledge (previous knowledge), and the

prior acquired knowledge structures are

called schemata. This theory indicates that

an interactive process between the text and

the reader is needed for a complete

comprehension. There should be a link

between the readers‘ background knowledge

and the text for the process of

comprehension. So the readers should have

the ability to relate what they read to their

previous knowledge. Anderson (1977,

p.369), stated that "every act of

comprehension involves one‘s knowledge of

the world as well".

2.2.1 Different Types of Schemata

Three types of schemata are content

schemata, formal schemata, and Cultural

schemata. Formal schemata are related to the

rhetorical structure of the text. Content

schemata, that is about the content of a text

read. Cultural schemata are about the

general aspects of cultural knowledge shared

by larger parts of a cultural population.

Different researchers may have

different classifications for example Carrell

(1988) had also added linguistic schemata to

these three types. Formal schema refers to

"background knowledge of the formal,

rhetorical organizational structures of

different types of texts" (CarrelL and

Eisterhold, 1983, p.79). Researchers believe

that schema or macro- structure refers to file

underlying structure which accounts for the

organization of a text or discourse. Stories,

reports, description, letters, and poems are

Different kinds of texts and are

distinguished by the ways in which the topic

and other information are related to each

other to form a unit.

Content schema refers to "background

knowledge of the content area of the text"

(CarrelL and Eisterhold, 1983, p.80). It

includes information about what is

happening in a certain topic, and how the

events can be linked to each other to form a

coherent text. For example, schema for

going to a restaurant would include

information about, menus, paying the bill

services (giving a tip), ordering dishes and

so on. Cultural schema is usually

categorized as content schema. Alexander,

Schallert, and Hare (1991) made a

distinction between content knowledge and

topic knowledge. They believe that content

knowledge refers to the reader‘s information

of physical, social and metal world, but the

topic knowledge is refers to the knowledge

related to a specific reading comprehension

text.

The study conducted by Alexander,

Schallert, and Hare (1991) showed that both

content and topic knowledge contribute

differentially but idiosyncratically to the

readers‘ comprehension ability. Rivers and

Temperley (1978, p.202) stated that all

cultural knowledge is "socio- cultural

meaning" which is "meaning which springs

from shared experiences, values and

attitudes". According to Johnson (1981),

and Carrell (1981), the implicit cultural

knowledge presupposed by a text activates

the reader's own cultural background

knowledge of content to make texts whose

content is based on one's culture easier to

read and understand than syntactically and

rhetorically equivalent text based on a less

familial-, more distant culture.

The interpretation of the same

information is different from one individual

to another. Steffenson et al (1979) have

showed this matter. Cultural differences are




Page | 167

important and without cultural awareness

there may be no efficient and complete

comprehension process. Linguistic schema

is about the about vocabulary and grammar

knowledge of the readers. It has a crucial

role in comprehension of different texts.

Eskey (1988, p. 94) believes that "good

readers are both decoders and interpreters of

texts, their decoding skills becoming more

automatic but no less important as their

reading skill develops".

2.3 Background Knowledge & Reading

Comprehension

Background knowledge is also

referred to as subject knowledge or topic

familiarity of learners. Every material in

reading comprehension needs specific

background knowledge. Different studies

emphasized the importance of background

knowledge in reading comprehension

process and stated that relevant background

knowledge will increase the performance of

students in the process of reading

comprehension (Pritchard, 1990; Nelson,

1987; Bensoussan, 1998).

Dubin, Eskey, Grabe, and Savignon

(1986) believes that prior knowledge is

readers‘ ‗knowledge crucial to reading‘ and

is categorized into two types: ‗knowledge of

form‘ and ‗knowledge of substance‘ (p. 18).

The knowledge of form provides

expectations about the language of the text

and making correct identifications of forms

in text. Knowledge of form consists of

recognition of graphophonic, lexical,

syntactic/semantic and rhetorical patterns of

language (Dubin, Eskey, Grabe, &

Savignon, 1986). Knowledge of substance,

on the other hand, consists of pragmatic and

subject-specific information and provides

expectations about the larger conceptual

structure of the text. According to

Rumelhart‘s (1994), the knowledge of form

is classified into syntactic, semantic,

orthographic and lexical knowledge.

Readers construct meaning not only

according to the text they are reading but

also according to their knowledge and

experiences. So the learners‘ prior

knowledge is an important factor that

influences their comprehension. Different

Studies have showed the positive effects of

background knowledge on reading

comprehension of EFL learners. For

example, several studies investigated the

importance of background knowledge

according to the culture emphasized in the

text and demonstrated that when readers are

culturally familiar with the text, they had a

better performance on comprehensive

questions (e.g., Johnson, 1982; Lee, 2007;

Alptekin, 2006). According to a study by

Yuet and Chan (2003) background

knowledge was more beneficial to low

proficiency learners. Yuet and Chan (2003)

and Alptekin (2006) also indicated that the

topics of texts should involve a wider range

of language proficiency levels. This

happened because the majority of the

researchers used advanced English

proficiency learners as the participants of

their studies.

Based on schema theory the

purpose of activating appropriate

background knowledge of texts is to produce

better reading comprehension performance

in readers, so teachers should be the

activators and facilitators of acquisition of

suitable background knowledge of students

in English classrooms. Teachers should also

emphasize the important role of background

knowledge in reading comprehension and

try to improve EFL learners‘ background

knowledge so that they will have a better

performance in comprehending the text and

answering the comprehensive questions.

2.4 Vocabulary Knowledge & Reading

Comprehension

Many researchers showed the

importance of vocabulary knowledge in the

process of reading comprehension and

emphasized the strong relationship between

vocabulary knowledge and reading

comprehension. For instance the role of

vocabulary knowledge on learners‘ reading

performance has been examined by Zhang

and Annual (2008). Other researchers such

as Joshi and Aaron (2005) stated that

vocabulary knowledge can determine the

level of reading comprehension ability of the

readers.

Hirsch (2003) indicated that there are

three principles that have useful implications

for improving EFL learners' reading

comprehension skill. One of them is fluency

that helps the mind to concentrate more on

comprehension, another one is breadth of

vocabulary that increases comprehension

and finally, domain knowledge increases

fluency, broadens vocabulary and enables

deeper comprehension. Results also

indicated that the learners‘ vocabulary

knowledge at the 2000 word and the 3000

word levels was obviously related with the

number of correct answers to the

comprehensive questions.

Vocabulary knowledge in reading

comprehension has the same effect of

background knowledge in reading

comprehension. For example Cromley and





Page | 168

Azevedo (2007) stated that background

knowledge and vocabulary knowledge of the

readers both had significant effects on their

reading comprehension ability. Many

researchers believe that vocabulary learning,

facilitates decoding, which constitutes an

important element of reading. It was

concluded that a lack of vocabulary

knowledge in the test passages followed by

questions is related to the sixth and fifth

grade learners‘ reading test performance

(Garcia, 2009). Restricted vocabulary level

along with a lack of sufficient vocabulary

knowledge can be a major barrier to EFL

learner comprehending the meaning of the

text.

There are several studies that used

vocabulary size scores to consider the

comprehension levels of learners (e.g.,

Alderson, 2000; Joshi, 2005; Ricketts,

Nation, & Bishop, 2007; Manyak & Bauer,

2009). For example Laufer (1997) and found

a strong relationship between different types

of vocabulary size tests and reading

comprehension tests.

Other researchers that conducted

researches in this field are Sanchez and

Garcia. Sanchez and Garcia (2009)

investigated the relationship between text

cohesion vocabulary which is a part of

rhetorical competence and reading

comprehension while taking into account

readers‘ word decoding skills and

background knowledge. According to their

results, text cohesion vocabulary increases

the learners‘ reading comprehension scores

in expository passages especially in middle

school students.

Rydland, Aukrust, and Fulland (2012)

also examined the importance of word

decoding, first and second language

vocabulary and background knowledge on

language learners‘ reading comprehension

performance. They used two types of

reading tests in their study. The first one is

Woodcock Passage Comprehension and the

second one is a Global Warming Test. The

results exhibited that, word decoding and

vocabulary knowledge have a positive effect

on participants‘ reading performance in

Woodcock Passage Comprehension, while

background knowledge was the determiner

of participants‘ scores in Global Warming

Test. Other studies (e.g., Keenan,

Betjemann, & Olson, 2008, Lervag &

Aukrust, 2010, Rydland, Aukrust, &

Fulland, 2012) showed that the effect of

word decoding and vocabulary on reading

comprehension is different according to the

way reading comprehension is measured.

2.5 Word Identification & Reading

Comprehension

Word identification skills will give

students the ability to decode words that are

in their language vocabularies. Developing

the capacity to process longer, multi-syllable

words and the development of fluency are

two major word identification goals for most

students. Therefore it is essential for the

students to have this ability in order to

function at a stage of development at which

they can associate sounds with letters or

words. They should also practice in

processing words to improve strategies for

identifying different syllables words. For

this to be true, teachers should form

strategies that are flexible so that words can

be divided into pronounceable units.

Students who want to improve their word

identification skill to increase the capacity

have to recognize large store of words

rapidly, automatically so that they will have

fluent reading skill.

Harris and Hodges (1995) defined

Fluency as "freedom from word

identification problems that might hinder

comprehension in silent reading or the

expression of ideas in oral reading or

automaticity". Two important aspects of

fluency are rapid decoding and accuracy.

Having fluent word identification is not

enough for complete comprehension

because limited comprehension may be the

result of slow reading. Practice is the most

effective way in improving students‘

fluency.

2.6 Interest and Reading Comprehension

Students show more motivation,

engagement, and positive effects in

comprehending tasks that they are interested

in (Ainley, Hidi & Berndorff, 2002;

Renninger, 1998, 2000). Hidi (1990)

indicated that interested learners show

higher levels of recall. Interest can also

increase important capacities to learner

autonomy, such as being able to attend and

find meaning, use effective learning

strategies, and set goals (Renninger, 2000).

Students with interest have specific goals

and plan to reach them, and have more

effective learning behaviors (Lipstein &

Renninger, 2006).

There are lot of studies about interest

and its importance in reading comprehension

but it has the capacity to conduct more

studies on it. Interest can be categorized as

individual, situational and topic interest. A

stable and enduring inclination to engage

with activities or objects is called individual

interest (Bergin, 1999; Hidi, 1990; Hidi,




Page | 169

Berndorff, & Ainley, 2002; Renninger, Hidi,

Krapp, & Renninger, 2014; Schiefele, 1999).

Situational interest refers to an emotional

state and can be activated by features of

environmental. Textual coherence and

comprehensibility, novelty and personal

relevance are factors that can activate

situational interest (Hidi & Baird, 1986).

Topic interest refers to interest activated by

a certain topic or theme. It has the

characteristics of the situational and

individual interest with contributions of

either depending on students‘ information,

experiences and the perceived value of a

topic (Ainley, et al., 2002; Bergin, 1999;

Renninger, 2000; Wade, Buxton, and Kelly,

1999). Choosing the title of a text is an

important process and needs great attention.

Students that are uninterested in science

might find this topic interesting because of

compelling qualities (such as novelty).

Interest influence reading skills in

different ways. Sentences with contents that

are interesting for readers are more likely to

be remembered than low-interest sentences

(Anderson, et al. 1984). Students experience

situational interest while reading resulted in

improved recall (Schraw, Bruning, and

Svoboda, 1995). Positive effects of interest

have been showed in researches conducted

under specific conditions, such as reading

silently and aloud and reading with required

post-tasks (Anderson, et al. 1984). It is one

of the factors that improve reading

comprehension by engaging students more

with the text and increasing their attraction

(Hidi, 2001; for another viewpoint, see

Shirey & Reynolds, 1988).

It is an important point to know

interest is different from intrinsic

motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to

absence of external control or reward (Deci,

1981; Bergin, 1999). Interest refers to

student‘s engagement and interaction with a

specific object (Krapp, et al. 1992). An

interested person is one attracted in a

specific topic for some reasons that are

related to previous experience and

knowledge.

2.7 Factors Affecting Reading

Comprehension: Some Empirical Studies

Text comprehension is a complex

cognitive skill in which the readers construct

meaning by linking all the available

resources from both the written text and

their previous knowledge. Successful

comprehension of the text is the result of

correct implementation of psychological

recourses (Yazdanpanah, 2007). One of

these psychological resources is the readers‘

stored or background knowledge.

Background knowledge is discussed in the

literature under the concept of schema

theory. Schema is the technical term used to

describe how readers process, organize, and

store information in their minds. We

organize information in our long-term

memory using schemas, or schemata

(Widdowson, 1983). Rumelhart (1982)

described schemata as ―the building blocks

of cognition‖.

There are many factors affecting

reading comprehension ability. For example

Snow, Burns, and Griffith (1998) indicated

that ―Adequate progress in learning to read

English beyond the initial level depends on

sufficient practice in reading to achieve

fluency with different texts‖ (p. 223).

Stricker, Roser, and Martinez (1998) also

stated that ―As automaticity in word

recognition develops, students read faster

and have greater opportunity to gain

meaning from the text. So difficulty in

recognizing individual words hampers the

ability to gain meaning from the text. As a

reader pauses to decode unfamiliar words,

thoughts about the portion of text may be

disrupted because readers need to make

connections between ideas within a text. If

reading proceeds too slowly, such

connections are difficult to make. Thus,

accurate word recognition must be

completed rapidly for fluency to occur.‖ (p.

299)

Samuels, Shermer, and Reinking

(1999) stated that alternate attention between

decoding and comprehension is necessary

for beginning reading and this process

places a heavy demand on memory. With

practice, the novice reader becomes fluent.

The visual unit in fluent reading is the whole

word, making the process fast and effortless.

In another study, Intarasombat (2002)

studied the effect of vocabulary

development on reading comprehension.

Participants were 40 students in the science

program. The instruments of the study were

vocabulary tests and reading comprehension

tests. The reading comprehension test was

used to measure the students‘ reading

comprehension ability. The participants‘

mean score in the vocabulary test and

reading comprehension test was low. Results

showed that the students had limited

vocabulary knowledge and this area caused

them problems of English reading

comprehension.

In a more complete study,

Tanghirunwat (2003) considered the reading

difficulties of Thai engineers reading





Page | 170

manuals and textbooks. The participants

were 50 employees of telecommunication

companies. For collecting the data

questionnaire was used about the

participants‘ difficulties with vocabulary,

grammar and the content of technical texts.

The results showed that Thai engineers‘

problems were in vocabulary, grammar, and

content. It was also revealed that the

students had difficulties with technical

vocabulary, new vocabulary stemming from

new technologies, and technical vocabulary

in the telecommunication field. They had

difficulties with grammar in the areas of

compound sentences, complex sentences,

complex noun phrases, and passive voice.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

The participants were 63 Iranian

learners studying English as a foreign

language in an institute in Mashhad,

Khorasan Razavi, Iran. They were selected

randomly from 82 advanced learners. They

were both male and female and had the same

background knowledge. Their age ranged

from 16 to 19 with a mean age of 17 years

old and SD of 1.06 years. According to the

results of the reading comprehension tests,

measuring the participants‘ reading

comprehension, and generally their English

reading- proficiency levels, the majority of

the participants seemed to be at low levels of

comprehension. Approximately 74% of the

scores were below the mean score and 26%

were above the mean score. Based on the

results of reading comprehension tests and

the teacher‘s determination during a

specified term, participants were divided

into two groups of good comprehenders

(group one) and poor comprehenders (group

two). There were 17 students in group one

and 46 students in group two. The

participants‘ ages ranged from 16 to 18

years old in group one and from 16 to 19

years old in group two.

3.2. Instrumentation

The instrumentation included two

reading comprehension tests and a

questionnaire used by Zheng Lin (2002).

Each test contains three passages that were

selected from the book Select Reading

written by Lee and Gundersen in 2001 to

measure participants‘ reading

comprehension ability. Each of the passages

followed by 16 questions and the whole test

has 48 questions. The researcher was

cautious to choose texts that are according to

the participants‘ level of proficiency and

background knowledge. Text difficulty and

topic familiarity were also taken into

consideration because these factors may

affect their reading comprehension. The

research also benefit a questionnaire used by

Zheng Lin (2002) about the participants‘

difficulties through the process of reading

comprehension. The test was piloted at two

different times: with 12 upper intermediate

EFL students and with 10 advanced EFL

students. The researcher made revisions

based on the results of the pilot tests. The

results showed that six items were

inappropriate and were discarded and

substituted by suitable items.

3.3. Data Collection Procedure

The data were collected from 63

advanced EFL learners in an institute in

Mashhad, Iran. For the purpose of this study,

all the participants were asked to take two

reading tests to determine their reading

comprehension ability. The tests were

designed according to the students‘ level and

were piloted two times first on 12 upper

intermediate EFL students and second on 10

advanced EFL students. The questions (6

questions) that were too easy or too difficult

were identified and replaced by more

appropriate questions. The researcher used

texts from the book Select Reading written

by Lee and Gundersen in 2001 and each test

consists of three passages and participants

had to answer 16 questions after each

passage based on the information in passage.

So each reading comprehension test had 48

questions. During the reading tests, the

discussion between participants was avoided

and they should silently read the passages

and answer the questions. In addition, after

the reading comprehension tests, finally,

participants had to fulfill a questionnaire

about their difficulties through the process

of reading comprehension. According to the

participants‘ test scores and the teacher‘s

determination during a specified term,

participants were divided into two groups of

good comprehenders (group one) and poor

comprehenders (group two) and the

identified problems were considered based

on this group division.

4. Results and Discussion

This research investigated these

questions: (1) What are the major reading

comprehension problems of Iranian EFL

advanced learners? (2) What are the major

reading comprehension problems of good

comprehenders and poor comprehemders?

(3) Is there any difference between the

reading comprehension problems of good

and poor EFL learners through reading

comprehension process?




Page | 171

Therefore this study aimed at

considering the major reading

comprehension problems encountered by the

Iranian advanced students that learn English

as a foreign language. First two reading tests

with different parts in vocabulary and

sentence structure to determine the students‘

reading comprehension ability were

administered. The results of the reading

comprehension tests are shown in Table 1

and Table 2. Table 1: Mean Score of Test 1 and Test 2

Table 2: Maximum and Minimum Scores

As shown in the table, the mean scores

of the participant in both tests are

approximately the same. It implies both tests

measured the participants‘ reading

comprehension ability appropriately. As

shown in Table 2 about 26 % of the whole

participants (17 students) had scores above

33 and it means that they have answered

more than 75% of the questions correctly.

Others that were about 74% of the

participants had lower scores. Based on

these scores and the teacher‘s determination

during a specified term the participants were

divided into two groups: those who had

scores below (poor comprehenders) and

those who had scores above the mean score

and had answered more than 75% of the

questions (good comprehenders). Table 3: Results of Reading Comprehension

Tests

As shown in Table 3, the mean score

of good comprehenders is 40.1764 in the

first reading comprehension test and

39.8823 in the second reading

comprehension test. The mean score of those

who were not successful in answering the

comprehensive questions or poor

comprehenders is 23.6739 in the first test

and 23.4347 in the second test. So that the

mean scores of the group one is higher in

both tests. We can observe that the mean

score of the group two is lower in both tests.

By comparing these means, we can observe

that the majority of the participants had

lower scores that shows their weak

comprehension ability.

The division of participants into two

groups of poor and good comprehenders

helped the researcher in identifying the

problems of EFL learners according to their

reading comprehension ability. After the

comprehension tests, the participants were

asked to fulfill a questionnaire about their

difficulties through the process of reading

comprehension. Table 4: The Problems of Students during

Comprehension Process

Table 4 shows the problems of the

students and the frequency of each problem

in both groups. So we can identify the major

reading comprehension problems of both

poor and good students.

As we see in chart 1 ( See Appendix),

the main problems of the students through

the process of reading are unknown

vocabulary, shortage of time, difficult or

boring content, and failure in applying

effective reading strategies.

Chart 2 (See Appendix) shows the

major comprehension of good

comprehenders. According to this chart

difficult or boring content is the main

problem of good comprehenders. These

students believe that teachers should use

update texts that are appropriate for their

level. Students also believe that providing

background knowledge or prior knowledge

is very beneficial for them.

Chart 3 shows the major

comprehension of poor comprehenders.

According to this chart unknown vocabulary

is the most important problem of poor





Page | 172

comprehenders. These students believe that

pre-teaching of the vocabularies is necessary

before teaching the texts.

The results of this study revealed

similar findings to the ones in the study of

Alderson (2000), Alptekin (2006), Ketchum

(2006), Oller (1995), Pulido (2003), and

Steffensen et al. (1979) who indicated that

prior knowledge has positive effects on

reading comprehension. This study also

emphasized the results of another study that

indicated sentences with contents that are

interesting for readers are more likely to be

remembered than low-interest sentences

(Anderson, et al. 1984). There are also

several studies that have similar results for

example in other studies vocabulary size

scores was used to consider the

comprehension levels of learners (e.g.,

Alderson, 2000; Joshi, 2005; Ricketts,

Nation, & Bishop, 2007; Manyak & Bauer,

2009). A strong relationship between

different types of vocabulary size tests and

reading comprehension tests was also found

(Laufer, 1997). In general results showed

that the, the main problem of the most of the

students is limited vocabulary knowledge

and also lack of prior knowledge based on

what they write in questionnaire.

5. Conclusion

The study was, in fact, an attempt to

identify the main comprehension problems

encountered by Iranian advanced EFL

learners through reading process. In

conclusion, the results from the present

study elucidate the main comprehension

problems of the poor comprehenders and

also students with better performance or

good comprehenders that study English as a

foreign language. It can be concluded that

helping students in overcoming problems

such as unknown vocabulary, shortage of

time, difficult or boring content, and failure

in applying effective reading strategies will

be beneficial for them. Vanichakorn (2004)

stated that the major difficulties of the EFL

learners‘ in reading comprehension are lack

of reading strategy knowledge, lack of

reading resources, lack of strong reading

culture, and teachers‘ use of unsuccessful

teaching methods.

According to a study by Quian

(2002) about the relationship between

vocabulary knowledge and academic

reading performance, using a combination of

vocabulary depth and size measures is

beneficial for improving the ability to

predict reading performance. Grammar is

also as important as vocabulary in predicting

reading performance. A study about relative

significance of syntactic knowledge and

vocabulary breadth showed that syntactic

knowledge was a better predictor of text

reading comprehension than vocabulary

(Shiotsu and Weir, 2007). It was also found

that the relative significance of syntactic

variable was not just limited to the lower

level students alone. So helping students in

improving their knowledge of grammar will

be beneficial for them. The participants who

did not know the meaning of some of the

words in the passage are unable to answer

the corresponding reading comprehension

questions. By reviewing studies (Alderson,

1993; Berry, 1990), we can conclude that

both lexical and syntactic knowledge are

required to reading comprehension. Purpura

(2004) also indicated that grammatical

knowledge includes knowledge of

phonological, lexical and cohesive forms

along with their meanings.

According to Pulido (2003) meaning

construction during reading comprehension

is an important cognitive skill and needs

using a type of linguistic knowledge and is

related to the vocabulary which is associated

with the text named passage sight

vocabulary (PSV). PSV is the knowledge of

the forms and common meanings of

vocabulary which are specifically related to

the text at hand, and are recognized

automatically, irrespective of context

(Pulido, 2000, 2007; Pulido & Hambrick,

2008). Inferencing is heart of reading

comprehension and teaching different kinds

of inference and improving students‘

inferencial comprehension will help them a

lot.

For improving EFL learner‘ reading

comprehension ability teachers should use

text with topics that are interesting for

students. The majority of the learners focus

on getting information without keeping time,

but time is an important factor. It means that

the EFL learners just focus on

comprehending and they do not pay

attention to the time so they may

comprehend the text but they don‘t have

enough time to answer the comprehensive

questions. It is necessary for the teachers to

explain about the importance of the time for

the learners. Developing students in speed

reading is not considered as a necessary

ability by teachers. The majority of the

learners have problems in reading speed and

reading comprehension it means that they

don‘t know how to read quickly and how to

comprehend the text well (Speece &

Ritchey, 2005; Giangiacomo & Navas,




Page | 173

2008; Snellings, van der Leij, de Jong, &

Blok, 2009; Silva & Capellini, 2010).

Using update texts and passages that

are exciting for learners and also using texts

that are related to EFL learners‘

information, level and previous experiences,

interest, and need can be beneficial in

improving EFL learners‘ reading

comprehension ability. Teachers should also

teach different strategies and techniques that

help EFL learners improve their word

identification.

Reference: Adams, M. J., & Collins, A. M. (1979). A

schema-theoretic view of reading in

Fredolle, RO (ed.) Discourse Processing

Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Norwood,

NJ Ablex.

Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002).

Interest, learning, and the psychological

processes that mediate their

relationship. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 94(3), 545.

Alderson, J. C. (1993). The relationship between

grammar and reading in an English for

academic purposes test battery. In A new

decade of language testing research:

Selected papers from the 1990 Language

Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 203-

219). TESOL.

Alderson, J. C. (2000). 2000: Assessing reading.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C.

(1991). Coming to terms: How researchers

in learning and literacy talk about

knowledge. Review of educational

research, 61(3), 315-343.

Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of

combined strategy instruction on high

school students. The Journal of

Educational Research, 97(4), 171-185.

Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in

inferential and literal comprehension in

L2 reading. System, 34(4), 494-508.

Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D.

L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for

comprehending discourse. American

Educational Research Journal, 14(4),

367-381.

Anderson, R. C., Shirey, L.L., Wilson, P.T., &

Fielding, L.G. (1984). Interestingness in

children‘s reading material. Technical

report from the Center for the Study of

Reading.

Bensoussan, M. (1998). Schema effects in EFL

reading comprehension. Journal of

Research in Reading, 21(3), 213-227.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom

interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2),

87-98.

Berry, M. T. (1990). The relationship between

analyzed knowledge of grammar and

reading comprehension of authentic text

at four levels of secondary school French

(Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State

University).

Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read:

Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2

readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319-

343.

Carrell, P. L. (1981, March). Culture-specific

schemata in L2 comprehension.

In Selected papers from the ninth Illinois

TESOL/BE annual convention, First

Midwest TESOL Conference (pp. 123-

132).

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal

schemata in ESL reading. TESOL

Quarterly, 21(3), 461-481.

Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. E. (Eds.).

(1988). Interactive approaches to second

language reading. Cambridge University

Press.

Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983).

Schema theory and ESL reading

pedagogy. TESOL quarterly, 17(4), 553-

573.

Chang-Chow, C. (2005). The effects of topic

familiarity and language difficulty on

situation-model construction by readers of

Chinese as a foreign language.

Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of

the ESL reader. Reading in a Second

Language, 5-12.

Craig, G. J. (1989). Human Development. (5th

ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing

and refining the direct and inferential

mediation model of reading

comprehension. Journal of Educational


Deci. (1981).The psychology of self-

determination. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading

strategies and reading comprehension

within a technology-enhanced learning

environment. System, 31(3), 349-365.

Dubin, F., Eskey, D. E., Grabe, W., & Savignon,

S. (1986). Teaching second language

reading for academic purposes. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Eskey, D. E. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An

interactive approach to the language

problems of second language

readers. Interactive Approaches to Second

Language Reading, 6.

Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second

language reading (pp. 93-100). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Giangiacomo, M. C., & Navas, A. L. (2008).

The influence of operational memory on

reading comprehension skills in 4th grade

students, 13(1) 69-74.

Goodmam, K., & Reading, S. (1967). A

Psycholinguistic Guessing

Games. Journal of the Reading Specialist.





Page | 174

Gove, M. K. (1983). Clarifying teachers' beliefs

about reading. The Reading

Teacher, 37(3), 261-268.

Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The

literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of

reading and writing. Order Department,

International Reading Association, 800

Barksdale Road, PO Box 8139, Newark,

DE 19714-8139 (Book No. 138: $25

members, $35 nonmembers).

Hayes, B. L. (1991). Effective strategies for

teaching reading. Allyn & Bacon.

Hengari, J. U. (2007). Identification of Reading

Difficulties amongst Grade 4 Learners of

the Arandis Primary School in Erongo

Region, Namibia. University of Namibia,

Unpublished Research Report.

Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning:

Theoretical and practical

considerations. Educational Psychology

Review, 13(3), 191-209.

Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—A

neglected variable in discourse

processing. Cognitive Science, 10(2), 179-

194.

Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002).

Children's argument writing, interest and

self-efficacy: An intervention

study. Learning and Instruction, 12(4),

429-446.

Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension

requires knowledge—of words and the

world. American Educator, 27(1), 10-13.

Hudson, T. (1982). The Effects of Induced

Schemata on the ―Short Circuit‖ in L2

Reading: Non‐decoding Factors in L2

Reading Performance 1. Language

Learning, 32(1), 1-33.

Intarasombat, P. (2002). The effect of

vocabulary development approach on

Mathayomsuksa 4 students‘ English

reading comprehension. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Khon kaen University,

Khon kaen, Thailand.

Irwin, J. (1991). (2nd Ed). Teaching reading

comprehension processes. Prentice Hall,

New Jersey.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading

comprehension of language complexity

and cultural background of a text. TESOL

Quarterly, 15(2), 169-181.

Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on Reading

Comprehension of building background

knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 503-

516.

Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The

component model of reading: Simple view

of reading made a little more

complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85-

97.

Jun Zhang, L., & Bin Anual, S. (2008). The role

of vocabulary in reading comprehension:

The case of secondary school students

learning English in Singapore. RELC

Journal, 39(1), 51-76.

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K.

(2008). Reading comprehension tests vary

in the skills they assess: Differential

dependence on decoding and oral

comprehension. Scientific Studies of

Reading, 12(3), 281-300.

Klein, M. L., Peterson, S., & Simington, L.

(1991). Teaching reading in the

elementary grades. Allyn & Bacon.

Laufer, B. (1997). What's in a word that makes it

hard or easy? Intralexical factors affecting

the difficulty of vocabulary

acquisiton. Vo-cabulary: Desc@ tion,

Acquisition and Pedagogy.

Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual

enhancement and topic familiarity on

Korean EFL students' reading

comprehension and learning of passive

form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87-118.

Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. G. (2010).

Vocabulary knowledge is a critical

determinant of the difference in reading

comprehension growth between first and

second language learners. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5),

612-620.

Lin, Z. (2002). Discovering EFL learners‘

perception of prior knowledge and its

roles in reading comprehension. Journal

of Research in Reading, 25(2), 172-190.

Lipstein, R., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). Putting

things into words‖: The development of

12-15-year-old students‘ interest for

writing. Motivation and writing: Research

and school practice, 113-140.

Malatesha Joshi, R. (2005). Vocabulary: A

critical component of

comprehension. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 21(3), 209-219.

Manyak, P. C., & Bauer, E. B. (2009). English

vocabulary instruction for English

learners. The Reading Teacher, 63(2),

174-176.

Martinez, M., Roser, N. L., & Strecker, S.

(1998). "I never thought I could be a star":

A Readers Theatre ticket to fluency. The

Reading Teacher, 52(4), 326-334.

Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher–level and lower–

level text processing skills in advanced

ESL reading comprehension. The Modern

Language Journal, 87(2), 261-276.

Nelson, G. L. (1987). Culture's role in reading

comprehension: A schema theoretical

approach. Journal of Reading, 30(5), 424-

429.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching

methodology (Vol. 192). New York:

prentice hall.

Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural

schemata on reading processing

strategies. Reading Research Quarterly,

273-295.

Pulido, D. C. (2000). The impact of topic

familiarity, L2 reading proficiency, and

L2 passage sight vocabulary on incidental




Page | 175

vocabulary gain through reading for adult

learners of Spanish as a foreign

language (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign).

Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of second

language proficiency and topic familiarity

in second language incidental vocabulary

acquisition through reading. Language

Learning, 53(2), 233-284.

Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic

familiarity and passage sight vocabulary

on L2 lexical inferencing and retention

through reading. Applied

Linguistics, 28(1), 66-86.

Pulido, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2008). The"

Virtuous" Circle: Modeling Individual

Differences in L2 Reading and

Vocabulary Development. Reading in a

Foreign Language, 20(2), 164-190.

Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar

(Cambridge Language Assessment

Series).

Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the

relationship between vocabulary

knowledge and academic reading

performance: An assessment

perspective. Language Learning, 52(3),

513-536.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.).

(2002). Methodology in language

teaching: An anthology of current

practice. Cambridge university press.

Rivers, W. M., & Temperley, M. S. (1978). A

Practical Guide to the Teaching of English

as a Second or Foreign Language. Oxford

University Press, 200 Madison Ave., New

York, NY 10016.

Rumelhart, E. E. (1982). Understanding. In J.

Flood (Ed), Understanding Reading

Comprehension, 1-21.

Samuels, S. J., Schermer, N., & Reinking, D.

(1992). Reading fluency: Techniques for

making decoding automatic. What

Research Has to Say about Reading

Instruction, 2, 124-144.

Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative

significance of syntactic knowledge and

vocabulary breadth in the prediction of

reading comprehension test

performance. Language Testing, 24(1),

99-128.

Silva, C., & Capellini, S. A. (2010). Eficácia do

programa de remediação fonológica e

leitura no distúrbio de aprendizagem. Pró-

fono, 22(2), 131-9.

Snellings, P., van der Leij, A., de Jong, P. F., &

Blok, H. (2009). Enhancing the reading

fluency and comprehension of children

with reading disabilities in an

orthographically transparent

language. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 42(4), 291-305.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding:

Towards a research and development

program in reading comprehension. Santa

Mónica, USA: Rand Reading Study

Group.

Gredler, G. R. (2002). Snow, CE, Burns, MS, &

Griffin, P.(eds.)(1998). Preventing reading

difficulties in young children.

Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 432 pp., $35.95. Psychology in the

Schools, 39(3), 343-344.

Speece, D. L., & Ritchey, K. D. (2005). A

longitudinal study of the development of

oral reading fluency in young children at

risk for reading failure. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 387-399.

Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R.

C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on

reading comprehension. Reading

Research Quarterly, 10-29.

Renninger, K. A. (1998). The roles of individual

interest (s) and gender in learning: An

overview of research on preschool and

elementary school-aged children/students.

In Interest and learning: Proceedings of

the See on conference on interest and

gender (pp. 165-174). IPN Kiel, Germany.

Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and

its implications for understanding intrinsic

motivation. In Intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation (pp. 373-404).

Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., Krapp, A., &

Renninger, A. (2014). The role of interest

in learning and development. Psychology

Press.

Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. (2007).

Vocabulary is important for some, but not

all reading skills. Scientific Studies of

Reading, 11(3), 235-257.

Rydland, V., Aukrust, V. G., & Fulland, H.

(2012). How word decoding, vocabulary

and prior topic knowledge predict reading

comprehension. A study of language-

minority students in Norwegian fifth

grade classrooms. Reading and

Writing, 25(2), 465-482.

Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building

blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce,

& W. Brewer.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive

model of reading. International Reading

Association.

Sánchez, E., & García, J. R. (2009). The relation

of knowledge of textual integration

devices to expository text comprehension

under different assessment

conditions. Reading and Writing, 22(9),

1081-1108.

Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995).

Sources of situational interest. Journal of

Reading Behavior, 27(1), 1-17.

Shirey, L. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (1988). Effect

of interest on attention and

learning. Journal of Educational


Shirey, L. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (1988). Effect

of interest on attention and





Page | 176

learning. Journal of Educational


Vanichakorn, N. (2004). Constructivism in

English as a foreign language secondary

classrooms in Bangkok, Thailand.

Wade, S. E., Buxton, W. M., & Kelly, M.

(1999). Using think‐alouds to examine

reader‐text interest. Reading Research

Quarterly, 34(2), 194-216.

Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose

and language use. Oxford University

Press.

Yazdanpanah, K. (2007). The effect of

background knowledge and reading

comprehension test items on male and

female performance. The Reading

Matrix, 7(2).

Yuet, C., & Chan, H. (2003). Cultural content

and reading proficiency: A comparison of

mainland Chinese and Hong Kong

learners of English. Language Culture and

Curriculum, 16(1), 60-69.

Appendix: 1 Figures 1, 2 & 3

Figure: 1

Figure: 2

Figure: 3

Appendix: 2 questionnaire on English reading

comprehension (Translated version)

Reading Failure among Iranian EFL Learners: Study of ... issue3/19-6-3-18.pdfJournal of English...

Documents

Transcript of Reading Failure among Iranian EFL Learners: Study of ... issue3/19-6-3-18.pdfJournal of English...